First, I read the author’s post in detail and in depth. This is a well structured text that includes individual thoughts of the author.
The main idea I extracted from the post is: There isn’t an objective morality.
I found that if the main idea is true, the following causes and effects must also be true:
- Close cause: Morality is something created by humans.
- Distant causes: The moral norms are created for survival and control of mankind; People don’t have instinct for morality; What is good depends entirely on our decision.
- Close effect: People will have total different morality in different time and places.
- Distant effects: The future morality will be very odd for us. We would not accept it now. We cannot easy change our definitions for good and bad. For example killing and eating animals will not be bad for many years in the future, if the group of vegetarians expands a lot.
Checking out how the scheme “Distant causes – Close cause – Main idea – Close effect – Distant effects” fits in reality and Equilibrium Theory:
- Correlation with reality: We see in everyday life so many cases of moral dilemma, especially when we are involved in some situation. Whether you decide something is moral or not really depends on your feelings, your emotions, your experience. You define for yourself the words good and bad. These two concepts really depend on the point of view. You can see what I mean in my post “Good and evil”.
- Correlation with Equilibrium Theory: The morality exists only in our brain, and more specifically – in our conscious. We use it for survival in our social community. Morality is something like normality – it is based on what is the moral point of the most people. We are tending to equilibrium with society – that makes humans follow the moral rules.
After my RR analyze, I come to the conclusion that the main idea seems to be true, because it is confirmed by the correlations made. There isn’t an objective morality.